test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Difficulty slider/Death penalty

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Hey, I just wanted to give my feedback on this.

First off, thank you Cryptic for giving us the Difficulty slider. It's nice having to actually try when fighting and doing missions.

On the other hand, though I was all for the DS, I was NOT for the DP. Here's my reason: The point of a DP is to add risk. Why add more risk when there is already risk is having to repeat/re-fight what you almost had destroyed, but then got blown up? Personally, I don't like having to not only get blown up and have to retry, but then I have to do it with a debuff that I can only get rid of by flying all the way back to space dock to get rid of. I understand some people wanted it, and that's fine. But, to give the Elite option and tie it with the DP is assuming everyone who wanted one wanted the other. I might be alone on this, but I do NOT like having to deal with something I didn't even want implemented in order to play an actually challenging mission.

Again, I thank you for what you have done and all your hard work, but please can you look into making both options separate?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    You're not alone. Unfortunately, that battle's already been fought and lost - I'd be very surprised if Cryptic would separate the two now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I think the two need to go hand-in-hand, but that's just me. IMO, there's plenty of ways to make combats more difficult without using the DP system. For solo play simply using a lower Mark of Equipment on your Ship and Captain/BO will do that: instead of using Mk X gear at Admiral use Mk IV. It'll be just as challenging as Elite but without the DP issues. On Ground missions you can also leave BO's behind. Before the DP I'd often have 2 stay at the beam-in point while I did the mission with the other two. There's aways tweaks around the DS/DP system if you want to think creatively.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Interesting - your argument is similar to one used by some of the people who were opposed to death penalties. I.e., if you really want a penalty, just unequip one of your weapons or consoles after dying until you finish the instance, or even delete it altogether.

    My answer to both modes of the argument is that there is a difference between being challenged at the top of your game, vs. gimping yourself for the sake of a challenge. I personally find the former very satisfying - but if I have to do the latter, meh, there's not much point in playing. You may enjoy it, but it'll always feel fake to me.

    However, I'll go one step further and ask this - what, exactly, is the purpose of the injury system to begin with? Is it to offer a challenge? If so, how does it offer a challenge of a nature that's superior to tougher and / or smarter mobs? Also, if its only purpose is to add a sense of challenge or risk, why shouldn't it be truly optional, with its own separate menu (and maybe boosted reward chances thrown in)? Alternatively, is the injury system meant to deter zergers and griefers? If so, why can we buy kits to repair injuries at a cost that's increasingly trivial past the lower levels? And what's to prevent zergers and griefers from playing at normal difficulty anyway? Are there other purposes? If so, what are they, and would it be impossible to fulfill those purposes better with some other mechanic?

    To be honest, from what I've read, it seems like the devs just put in the injury system to answer demands for a death penalty, without having a well-formed notion of what a death penalty is supposed to do. The fact that they tied it to a mechanic that has a much clearer purpose just kinda left me scratching my head in confusion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I think if you want to be challenged "at the top of your game" you PvP. The only true test is to be the best you can be against someone else.

    As far as the Injury system, I think it adds a degree of ST episode realism: Kirk fighting the Gorn with the injured leg hampering him or the Enterprise doing battle with engines weakened, hull damaged, etc. I think there's few ST fars who will ever forget the damaged Enterprise fighting against the damage Reliant in the Wrath of Khan.

    Above all things I don't want to forget that this is a Star Trek game rather then just any old MMO where people fight against things and each other.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Cosmic_One wrote: »
    I think if you want to be challenged "at the top of your game" you PvP. The only true test is to be the best you can be against someone else.
    PvE can deliver solid challenge, even in MMOs. It just usually doesn't. Are you recommending to the OP that he should be content to either gimp himself or to exclusively PvP?
    As far as the Injury system, I think it adds a degree of ST episode realism: Kirk fighting the Gorn with the injured leg hampering him or the Enterprise doing battle with engines weakened, hull damaged, etc. I think there's few ST fars who will ever forget the damaged Enterprise fighting against the damage Reliant in the Wrath of Khan.
    Realism arguments don't fly, at least not with me. Kirk didn't die and then fight the Gorn with an injured leg. The Enterprise didn't blow up and then fight the Reliant in a damaged state. As far as I'm concerned, the only realistic consequences of defeat are either capture or permadeath (maybe retreat, but we sort of already have that). Anything else just shifts the suspension of disbelief to another kind of disbelief.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    PvE can deliver solid challenge, even in MMOs. It just usually doesn't. Are you recommending to the OP that he should be content to either gimp himself or to exclusively PvP?
    No. I was replying to your comment about being at the top of your game. I don't believe playing against an AI offers the ability to challenge yourself that way. As I said originally, if you want a greater challenge but don't like the DP then there are other alternates, which I then presented.
    Realism arguments don't fly, at least not with me. Kirk didn't die and then fight the Gorn with an injured leg. The Enterprise didn't blow up and then fight the Reliant in a damaged state. As far as I'm concerned, the only realistic consequences of defeat are either capture or permadeath (maybe retreat, but we sort of already have that). Anything else just shifts the suspension of disbelief to another kind of disbelief.
    There's only so much you can do in an MMO. In ST most people fall down after 1 shot. In the MMO it can take well over a dozen. No one wants perma-death so you're left with option 2: injured to represent that which we've seen on the screen.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    PvE can deliver solid challenge, even in MMOs. It just usually doesn't. Are you recommending to the OP that he should be content to either gimp himself or to exclusively PvP?

    Realism arguments don't fly, at least not with me. Kirk didn't die and then fight the Gorn with an injured leg. The Enterprise didn't blow up and then fight the Reliant in a damaged state. As far as I'm concerned, the only realistic consequences of defeat are either capture or permadeath (maybe retreat, but we sort of already have that). Anything else just shifts the suspension of disbelief to another kind of disbelief.

    Remember your character has never died yet. What players refer to as death is described in your health bar as unconscious...which is why the resuscitation skill works on you. I cannot adequately explain how you survived being vaporised....I guess you just got better :-p

    I would like to see the injury system work in combat when an exploit is successful against a player character instead of the character being vaporised. Sure, vape the npcs but players should not be disinitegrated in my opinion. Instead have an injury occur to make it more dynamic.

    I do concede though I would prefer a different end to a space fight rather than your vessel exploding; instead drifting helpless until you are assisted with emergency repairs by a friendly vessel (the space version of resuscitate) or you respawn. I'd have left the self-destruct option for your ship as an episode power, not a suicide attack option in general combat.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    All I can say is, if they did what I was asking, those who want both can still have both. But, those who never wanted to DP wouldn't have to put up with it and could have just the difficulty to play around with. I like a challenge, but when I run into a hard part and have to go about thing differently I personally don't want to deal with something I didn't even want in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I don't have an issue with the injuries or the difficulty system in general. I mean in makes sense that on higher difficulties there is more risk. I like it, if I want a little more casual game I can have it, or I can crank it up. I've found a little more fault in the injury system itself. I like it, but there are a couple major flaws.

    You've all experienced it so I don't have to explain it. However, the biggest issue with the system is that you can have things like... multiple concussions. You know, because you have multiple heads. I think a tiered approach might be a bit better like:

    You get a head wound, get a few more and its a concussion. If you get a concussion you are done with the head wounds. Having to heal three head wounds and four concussions is silly. Instead of stacking I think they should culminate. Several lights become a medium, several mediums become a critical. Three cases of internal bleeding is just overkill. You are either bleeding internally or you aren't. Just make several areas of the body that can be damaged, and several types of damage. Then follow the above system.

    The main reason I point this out is not because it affects your stats. It's because it affects your wallet. Maybe you have 300000 credits in the bank. Apparently Starfleet HMO's are crooks, because our healthcare plan sucks. Going back to a space station should be really the only requirement. I'd expect to pay out if I was trying to get the Romulans to treat me, but the Federation should be paying for my healthcare. You make it back to base and Starfleet patches you up, done and done.

    I think if they go ahead and implement sick bays you could just keep commodities aboard your ship. That's where money can come in. Being healed on the fly, or aboard your ship I can accept having to pay for. But I guess Starfleet captains don't have health insurance. Suprised the TRIBBLE out of me.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Cosmic_One wrote: »
    There's only so much you can do in an MMO. In ST most people fall down after 1 shot. In the MMO it can take well over a dozen. No one wants perma-death so you're left with option 2: injured to represent that which we've seen on the screen.
    Except what we see on the screen is our ships blowing up in unambiguous fashion, or our entire away teams falling incapacitated (or vaporized) in the presence of enemies who would presumably try to make sure we don't come back. Magically respawning somewhere else kinda blows away any attempt to "represent" what happened to you in-game. (There's the "emergency beam-out" idea for ground combat, but we don't even have that.)

    I fully realize that MMOs are limited in certain ways, and we're not gonna have any sort of realistic consequence of defeat. But that's exactly why any argument that appeals to realism or representation strikes me as so odd. Personally, I have to bend my mind in uncomfortable ways to see the injury system as representing what happens to you when you've been defeated.

    So - good try, but I'm not buying the claim that the injury system is realistic, immersive, or representative.

    Going back to my questions - what purposes does the injury system actually serve, and does it actually serve those purposes better than other options? Why not make it a standalone, truly optional feature, as the OP suggested?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    Except what we see on the screen is our ships blowing up in unambiguous fashion, or our entire away teams falling incapacitated (or vaporized) in the presence of enemies who would presumably try to make sure we don't come back. Magically respawning somewhere else kinda blows away any attempt to "represent" what happened to you in-game. (There's the "emergency beam-out" idea for ground combat, but we don't even have that.)

    I fully realize that MMOs are limited in certain ways, and we're not gonna have any sort of realistic consequence of defeat. But that's exactly why any argument that appeals to realism or representation strikes me as so odd. Personally, I have to bend my mind in uncomfortable ways to see the injury system as representing what happens to you when you've been defeated.

    So - good try, but I'm not buying the claim that the injury system is realistic, immersive, or representative.

    Going back to my questions - what purposes does the injury system actually serve, and does it actually serve those purposes better than other options? Why not make it a standalone, truly optional feature, as the OP suggested?

    ^^^This^^^
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Well, they put in a form of DP and it works just like I knew it would. Now instead of just having to pause and think about what you might have done wrong you have to travel a long ways or spend "money" or time to fix the injuries. What did that add to the game? NOTHING, but headache.

    I am VERY glad, however, that they at least made it optional by not including it in the normal system. YAHOO to Cryptic for that! I am not being sarcastic in any way when I say that. I am really grateful. I am able to continue to play STO like am I used to and have just as much fun. I think it was a good choice to do it this way.

    For those who want more of a challenge or "realism", you got it. You can play at higher levels and get all injured up and it doesn't affect my just having fun and dreaming about a Star Trek universe as I play.

    Thank you Cryptic. Very elegant solution....

    PS Please don't let anyone every talk you into adding the Injury system to the normal play level.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Is "elite" the best we can do or am I missing something?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Yes Crypitc,

    Thank you from myself as well !! The game is actually Challening playing on Elite, I LOVE IT!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Muriondi wrote: »
    I am VERY glad, however, that they at least made it optional by not including it in the normal system.

    Yeah. And for those who don't like the DP, the only way to avoid it is to go back to super-easy mode. In which case I might as well stop playing since it was so dull and boring on normal. Elite is where it's at, but if I make one fatal mistake, not only do I have to try again, I might have to spend time going back and forth for repairs (I seem to only get one or two ship repair drops every 3-4 missions and once they are used, I'm screwed).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    To be honest, from what I've read, it seems like the devs just put in the injury system to answer demands for a death penalty, without having a well-formed notion of what a death penalty is supposed to do. The fact that they tied it to a mechanic that has a much clearer purpose just kinda left me scratching my head in confusion.

    I honestly believe someone at Cryptic got it in their head that a death penalty means kicking a player repeatedly in the head whenever they mess up. I think it has something to do with some core people at Cryptic not liking death penalties to begin with, and thus not ever truly understanding what they're about.

    I want MMOs to have death penalties because I believe they discourage sloppy play, or worse - a playstyle that actually takes advantage of the lack of penalty (like zerging). But I'm not really a fan of STO's death penalty. I like the injury system, but I feel they went to far with the punishments.

    First, the money-sink spoils the "coolness" of the injury system. I like that there's a chance of obtaining an injury upon being incapacitated. I also like the chance of obtaining a more serious injury should you be incapacitated while injured. And I especially like that those injuries debuff your stats, making it more difficult to continue the mission. That, after all, encourages you to not be repeatedly incapacitated.

    What I'm not fine with is the potentially huge repair bill tied to it. I think most people will never get to the point where they're seriously debuffed because (I think) most people will use the repair kits to remove an injury after each death. Because nobody wants to increase the chances of suffering a more serious injury - and not because they're afraid of the additional debuff, but because they want to avoid injuries that are more expensive to heal.

    So, in the end it stops being about injuries and debuffs and becomes just about spending money. Spending money to repair injuries. Spending money on kits to repair injuries on the spot to avoid spending more money on more serious injuries. Etc etc. They have this really cool injury system that can actually add some interesting elements to a mission and then they ruin it by making you want to avoid it like the plague because losing money sucks.

    Second, the system doesn't apply to everyone. Instead, it only applies to people who choose a more difficult setting, and I don't think that's fair. Either we're all in the same boat or we're not. When it comes to MMOs, players should all be using the same rulebook.

    Now, I would be fine with this if it weren't for the "money-sink" part. Debuff-causing-injuries on higher difficulty settings? Sure, that makes sense. But since when does "desire more challenging opponents" = "desire to flush credits down a toilet". It's like we're having to pay in-game money for the privilege of not fighting easy opponents. Honestly, at this point I'm surprised they just didn't toss the whole difficulty slider on the C-Store as a pay-to-use feature, because that's pretty much what it turned out to be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I was anti DP until I tried it out. Now, I support it.

    I don't think it is that bad as a money sink but that is just me.


    However, something to note is that the injury system is tied to the upcoming ship interiors. The medical bay will eventually remove your injuries. As I understand it, it will have some sort of mini game attached.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Combadge wrote:
    I want MMOs to have death penalties because I believe they discourage sloppy play, or worse - a playstyle that actually takes advantage of the lack of penalty (like zerging).
    This runs counter to my personal experience. The most solid team play I've ever seen, happened in a game (City of Heroes) with what I'd consider the weakest death penalty out there. Conversely, games with stronger death penalties tended to show weaker and less frequent team play.

    Can't say I've seen much zerging in either case, but I've seen distasteful play in some different, particularly irritating forms, like 1) high-level guildies blowing through encounters as a "favor" to their lower-leveled guildmates, 2) players jumping team at the first sign of trouble, and 3) players laying blame on other players instead of trying to revise or coordinate a plan of attack.

    Otherwise, I agree that the injury system is just a money-sink in disguise. However, I'd disagree with your suggested changes - what would result is a harsher form of the Guild Wars penalty, which game had more than its fair share of the above behaviors in my experience.

    Anyway, last post before Welcome Back Weekend ends. Maybe I'll catch y'all on the next one. Have fun! :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    This runs counter to my personal experience. The most solid team play I've ever seen, happened in a game (City of Heroes) with what I'd consider the weakest death penalty out there. Conversely, games with stronger death penalties tended to show weaker and less frequent team play.

    Actually, I think City of Heroes has one of the stronger types of death penalties out there: xp loss, second only to the dreaded item loss.

    Sure, they call it "xp debt"; instead of going backwards and potentially losing a level you're basically only receiving half the normal experience for a limited amount of time (because the other half is going straight into the toilet.. wait, I mean "towards paying off your debt").

    Either way, you're losing experience. And the end result is the same - if a group of friends are trying to play together and some of them die more frequently than others they end up with a situation where they're leveling at different rates even though they're playing together. It sucks whether it's called an XP debt or an XP loss.

    I can't say I agree with your assessment that games with stronger death penalties tend to show weaker and less frequent team play. Everquest had one of the must frustrating types of death penalties out there and groups entering dungeons worked their rears off as a team to stay alive. But I think that also had to do with the fact that most classes couldn't solo dungeon encounters and teamwork was necessary. I would suggest that group play tends to break down when you introduce a risk (like a death penalty) into a scenario where teamwork wasn't required to succeed in the first place (like a super-easy STO encounter). That combination leaves open the option to simply run with the stuff hits the fan.
Sign In or Register to comment.